I had no plans to post anything tonight but my sense of logic is screaming for redemption.
So, there is all this new terrible bullying around the medical product of the day: the DOJ opinion, Cuomo, Deblasio, and so on.
Why is the push for the product so unusually aggressive?
For the sake of going with the internal logic of the push, let's please take it at face value. Let’s assume that the politicians really are concerned about people’s health (at least to the degree that they don’t want bodies in the streets), that the medical product works and has been proven safe both short-term and long-term, and that the politicians are getting legitimately irritated with the selfish citizens who don’t understand what’s good and thus are delaying everybody’s glorious exit out of the pandemic.
Fine.
Let’s just assume that all this bullying is for our own health and a proper economic recovery—and while the politicians are using extremely aggressive methods, it’s for public good.
Then… I am confused.
If our health is so important, and if all of this bullying is to make sure that we don’t die, then why is it that before the medical product became available—and when the official story was that there was no treatment for this disease and getting it was a near death sentence—why is it that any doctor who had used own thinking and experience to figure how to treat this dangerous disease—who had saved precious lives against all odds and was super eager to share their seemingly working method with the world for other doctors to at least be aware of it—any such doctor experienced an immediate and sharp fall from grace? Why?
The therapies that came under severe coordinated censorship generally had exceptionally clean safety profiles—and in some countries, were over the counter, like aspirin is in the United States. Given the amount of drugs with much more threatening safety profiles that a lot of Americans are routinely put on, that’s a little odd.
So my perhaps naive question is… within the internal logic of the “health” narrative, how can that heavy censorship of potential therapies be explained? I am really trying here.
It can, however, be effortlessly explained within the logic of commerce. Within the logic of commerce, an existence of a working therapy would have made it legally impossible to issue an emergency use authorization for the medical product of interest. The existence of an effective therapy would have blocked the way for the EUA, which would then have forced the process of developing a v-word into a “normal” course, with years of testing for long-term effects, and the ROI infinitely delayed.
But then we go back to the clean “health” narrative, and again, I don’t know how to explain such unusual censorship. I really don’t because most people, when facing a possibility of dying from a horrible disease, would likely want to at least try some kind of an early treatment, even if there are no guarantees. Most people would want to know about what’s on the table so that they can talk about options with their doctor and make a private choice, based on everything they know, the way patients have been doing for decades. And if the only other option is dying or getting mysterious long COVID—why not let doctors at least try prevent the suffering?
And why is it that the censorship was so bad that pharmacists in some states were ordered to block prescriptions by actual medical doctors, you know, the people who went to medical school and everything—and who presumably are professionals?
And why was a Twitter account of an entire medical publication deleted for posting one positive article about a potential COVID treatment with a super clean safety profile—while the two leading medical journals that published a highly publicized but fraudulent and quickly retracted study “proving” that a treatment was no good, did not experience any censorship whatsoever?
On a side note, you know what would convince a bunch of “skeptics”?
If the manufacturers became legally liable for injuries, short-term or long-term. If they had any legal responsibility at all for their product.
That, now, would be far more convincing than doughnuts (another healthy choice, thank you) and lotteries. And certainly far more convincing than threats.
Because who doesn’t enjoy being bullied for their own good? As an old Russian saying goes, “He beats me… now, that’s love!”
(Thank you)
I’m confused too. You can throw around numbers all day long… but the upshot is the recovery rate is very high and the death rate very low, no matter how you slice that sausage. And for someone in my demographic, the death rate is really low, to the point of insignificance. They want me vaccinated to protect others from this really low death rate - okay, sure or I could just isolate - you know like what we normally do when someone gets sick? (Asymptotic cases are not true) And what about all the other things that kill people in much MUCH greater numbers? Like diabetes or cancer or air pollution etc… where is the zeal for these things to be avoided? Wait a minute … you can’t prevent cancer with a jab, you can only do it through a better lifestyle and where’s the money in that? Combine this suspicion with the rushed vaccine roll-out, lack of data on long term side effects and my general distrust for anything that comes from government, corporate or monetised mouthpieces … I’ll pass on your little needle thanks (these are not my only reasons for not wanting to be vaccinated but it will do for now). But it won’t be that simple will it? They’re going to strong arm us into getting this vaccine? It’s all very suspicious. I keep having this waking nightmare where everyone who got vaccinated (some of my near and dear have been) gets very sick and/or dies a few years down the track. I know that’s not likely but imagine a world where nearly everyone is vaccinated and that vaccine turns (was planned to be) out to be deadly …. Hmmm
Excellent points! Liability (aka "accepting responsibility") for their product would make the product manufacturers less suspect. So would have making the entire venture a non-profit humanitarian effort from Day 1. As we all know that did not happen, nor been discussed or even suggested relative to ongoing and future campaigns. (Correct me if I'm wrong.)
Secondly, if people's health is the priority, where is the messaging directed towards those suffering with cardiometabolic disease (Type 2 diabetes, obesity, hypertension)? This population makes up a staggering 2 in every 3 patients hospitalized for Covid (O'Hearn et al. J Am Heart Ass. 2021). Cardiometabolic disease is both preventable and REVERSIBLE in the vast majority of patients with 1) low carbohydrate dietary intervention (cheap & simple to implement) and 2) practical lifestyle modifications (30 minutes a day walking, for example). Why is nobody talking about this? Reducing risk of severe disease saves lives!